Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Limited Scope of Interference under Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Financial Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that reaffirms the sanctity of arbitration proceedings, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an Arbitral Award in a financial dispute involving Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd and Gunocean Inc. The bench, comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, upheld the Arbitral Award dated 20.02.2019, which had directed the appellants to pay substantial sums with interest and costs to the respondent.

The judgment, pronounced on January 23, 2024, emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards. The Court observed, "Under Section 34 of the Act, scope of interference by the courts is very limited and only if there is any patent illegality in the Arbitral Award, then only it is required to be touched upon" (Para 35). This statement highlights the judiciary's respect for the arbitration process and its outcomes, provided they adhere to legal standards and public policy.

The dispute originated from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed between the parties, involving financial transactions and commission payments. The appellants, Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd, and its directors faced allegations of defaulting on payments as per the MoU. Responding to these allegations, the appellants contended that the MoU was forged, and the Arbitral Award violated public policy. However, these claims were dismissed by the Court, which found no evidence of forgery or violation of public policy norms.

The respondent, Gunocean Inc., accused the appellants of habitual defaulting and making false averments. The Court noted the appellants' history of legal troubles and found no merit in their challenge to the Arbitral Award.

This decision is a testament to the Indian judiciary's approach towards arbitration as a mode of dispute resolution. By limiting its intervention to cases of patent illegality, the Court has sent a strong message about its commitment to uphold the decisions made within the arbitration framework, respecting the autonomy of the arbitration process.

Date of Decision: 23 January 2024

ARJUN MALL RETAIL HOLDINGS PVT LTD & ORS. VS  GUNOCEN INC.

Latest Legal News